product_plan_domain_intelligence

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations indicate mutability and potential destructiveness (destructiveHint=true), but the description does not disclose what the action does, what side effects it may have, or what permissions are required. The word 'run' suggests execution but leaves the behavior opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and clear, using only two sentences. It avoids unnecessary jargon and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is part of a large set of similar domain-specific dispatchers, the description lacks sufficient context to differentiate its use case. It does not mention what output to expect, what constitutes a valid message or inputs, or any constraints. The sibling list is overwhelming and the description offers no help in choosing this tool over others.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides two parameters (message and inputs) with no descriptions or types beyond strings. The description adds some meaning by labeling them as 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', giving basic semantic hints, but lacks details on expected format or examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action being run ('run the product domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`'), which identifies the specific domain and action. It does not distinguish from the many sibling domain-specific tools beyond the domain name, but that is inherent to the naming.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not explain the scenario for invoking `plan_domain_intelligence` or contrast it with similar sibling tools like `brain_plan_domain_intelligence`.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.